IETF Logo Mail Archive

[bmwg] Comment: draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-02

Bharat M Gaonkar <gbharat@juniper.net> Mon, 14 November 2016 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <gbharat@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228CB1295E5; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlrR6ealtG3M; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92E021293EE; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:46:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=d5NzvUMFmPER1vD/2/B39Ib+ChQKh2CnjmovFw4tsSQ=; b=L/plwWpM3N2L1wFqh6h031Sh4IJdgDUrS73LV0SidFwPov0lV8RcdArMRBCEA32ttwWNlhKXvgitA2fRPYV23Z1IeplSfn55u+5YoTjPvd4fCVwqcXb4O6ya2DCaoGgbOJ2uzAHbSLzEmlXYHsOIXG9l5r0t1X8XShMrj8JmGqY=
Received: from BN6PR05MB2852.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.255.137) by BN6PR05MB2849.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.255.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.734.2; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:46:06 +0000
Received: from BN6PR05MB2852.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.255.137]) by BN6PR05MB2852.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.255.137]) with mapi id 15.01.0734.004; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:46:06 +0000
From: Bharat M Gaonkar <gbharat@juniper.net>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comment: draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-02
Thread-Index: AdI8Oc0VE7m8R1ZfTuS59Uk4PBcHTg==
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:46:06 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR05MB28523450FACFBF89AE87D43FBFBC0@BN6PR05MB2852.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=gbharat@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.13]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR05MB2849; 7:pcLaM+LrL2MQKrussTqAr422DVUo+H2Lf9o+nN9rH2o2tMIDtIbapuYeLq6YYDFOur+jMX3ioA/d8R+G1tQ0keNSSXj9leGnc8/ND+OBbB9XBMG1UGiZ2VLOT6LRLTxQ+EipenSgzzmhn/h3yoDLoNn+n+aqKG4VtzO6xQs60D5C7eyq5xq6qnwmj0fU8rjgzZTUWbL2/FhEKTi7G/NlWucj4E6piEt9YpoBeJw4jBVHlK4BeCK4t7pS6FETGRftzCo/3mB4ZKk7AYmiXGviQTE/gMnYtIMmihn/qXFA7RCevcsuPeUmSU5KK8QPTkz9CYg/xw/aipbqu5fH6m4JEG9gDQZzb6pHEzxEsDNXN+w=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f242d20f-4ba4-474d-74b5-08d40c2fffeb
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN6PR05MB2849;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR05MB2849554498BEC3FA1FEB406EBFBC0@BN6PR05MB2849.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(190756311086443)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6060314)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6061309)(6072136); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2849; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(304825118); SRVR:BN6PR05MB2849;
x-forefront-prvs: 0126A32F74
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(336003)(199003)(189002)(74316002)(105586002)(81166006)(54356999)(81156014)(101416001)(50986999)(8936002)(99286002)(230783001)(1730700003)(68736007)(2351001)(106356001)(86362001)(9686002)(92566002)(77096005)(122556002)(76576001)(2900100001)(2501003)(2906002)(7696004)(6916009)(110136003)(97736004)(4326007)(5660300001)(87936001)(8676002)(66066001)(3846002)(102836003)(6116002)(305945005)(7846002)(7736002)(586003)(3280700002)(33656002)(450100001)(5640700001)(189998001)(3660700001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB2849; H:BN6PR05MB2852.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR05MB28523450FACFBF89AE87D43FBFBC0BN6PR05MB2852namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Nov 2016 01:46:06.1808 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB2849
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/i4jpEyHcAJIhNxfuNhaEiVg52Nc>
Cc: "draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest@ietf.org" <draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest@ietf.org>
Subject: [bmwg] Comment: draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-02
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:52:51 -0000

Hi Authors,

I would like to support your draft. I had a comment though explicitly with respect to delay measurement.


5.1 Y.1731 Two-way Delay Measurement Test procedure

Basic Testing Objective

Check the round trip delay of the network in different conditions of
traffic load in the network.

Test Procedure

Configure a layer 2 point-to-point service between PE1 and PE2.
Configure Y.1731 Two way delay measurement over the service.Observe
the delay measurement in the following conditions of traffic in the network

a.      Send 80% of Line-rate traffic with different priorities and frame size.
b.      Send 40% of Line-rate traffic with different priorities and frame size.

Can we elaborate in the draft the point a and b more. I believe you mean for each priority all frame sizes should be selected? Also can we add some variations in traffic type (IP, L2 Control, transit L2 control ...) This gives a different load on the box and hence impacts delay measurement.

Thanks,
Bharat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email